Benjamin Dennehy refused to apologise after describing Southall as "largely
an Indian community" that "harbours and exploits their own people
in squalid third world living conditions"

Photo: Christopher Pledger

By News agencies

10:42AM GMT 13 Dec 2013

A Ukip councillor accused of making "inappropriate and provocative" comments about Southall's Indian community is asking a top judge to uphold his human right to "shock and disturb".

Benjamin Dennehy, who represents Ealing's Hanger Hill Ward, refused to apologise after describing Southall as "largely an Indian community" that "harbours and exploits their own people in squalid third world living conditions" in a blogpost last year.

Mr Dennehy, who was expelled from the Tory party shortly afterwards, was found to have breached the local authority's code of conduct and was told to remove the post and say sorry by Ealing Council's Standards Committee in May.

But Mr Dennehy has now launched a judicial review challenge to the Committee's rap at London's High Court, saying it was "disproportionate and unjustified" and breached his fundamental right to freedom of expression.

His barrister, Simon Butler, said he made the controversial comments in relation to Southall on his blog in March, 2012, while still a member of the Conservative party.

It read: "It is a largely Indian community who say they deplore this behaviour but yet it is that very same community that harbours and exploits their own people in squalid third world living conditions."

He went on: "The exploding population of illegal immigrants is a constant on the public purse. Illegal immigrants don't pay tax. The legitimate immigrants exploiting them in squalid bed sheds don't pay tax on their rental income."

Mr Dennehy, who also wrote "criminality is endemic in Southall", was expelled from the Conservative Party in April, 2012, but remains a councillor as a member of Ukip.

The investigating officer appointed by the council's Monitoring Officer said "in my view, the blog can be seen to be inappropriately derogatory" in a report completed in August, 2012.

In May, this year, the Standards Committee ruled that, "whilst the blog post raised a number of important and legitimate issues for debate, the tone and much of the content had been inappropriate and unnecessarily provocative."

Mr Dennehy was told to remove the offending blog post and to apologise, but Mr Butler said the rebuke breached his right to freedom of expression, under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

He said: "A person has a right to say things which, unfortunately, shock and disturb. People might be offended, of course they might. They might not agree with the bulk of the comments.

"They might feel it was inappropriate and provocative. But that does not justify an interference with Mr Dennehy's rights."

Mr Butler said the comments were lawful and therefore outside the committee's powers to censure. It had in any event given "inadequate reasons" for its decision, he added.

The barrister said 82% of those polled on the Ealing Gazette's website said they did not find the comments offensive.

However, Tom Cross, for the council, said the comments were "not the expression of a political view point but an unjustified personal and generic attack on a section of the public" which clearly merited the committee's response.

He added: "The comments would have plainly undermined confidence in local government, which it is a recognised aim of the codes of conduct to preserve."

He said the blog post sparked a wave of reaction, including a petition signed by 280 people who said they were "shocked by councillor Dennehy's derogatory comments" and furious letters sent to the local press.

Mr Cross argued the reasons given by the committee were "plainly adequate" and asserted that Mr Dennehy's complaints were "unarguable".

The councillor, wearing a black and white sweater, looked on from the court benches as Judge Martin McKenna reserved his judgment on his challenge.